I know - that's what surprised me!
The whole gun-control-nut position is based on pro-active law enforcement... Punishing folk that MIGHT POTENTIALLY commit a crime.
This is exactly what I'm most against.
Good to hear!
Hell no - it'd be local, like vehicle registration etc. Cars have a lot of strings because they're dangerous.
Aye - but you can't use a car in self defense (well, unless there are VERY strange circumstances) - nor is the government actively interested in taking away cars from all law-abiding citizens.
Registering guns has been, historically in this country, a precursor to draconian gun-control - if the government knows where they are, they WILL take them away.
OK, I'll admit this is possible, so I'll say, you must prove you own a gun that matches the ammo you're buying. If this means physically bringing in proof of purchase, so be it. Lose the proof, lose the ability to fire it. I'll go farther, and insist that a test-firing of said gun be done to record its unique rifle tracing for later ballistic analysis if needed.
THIS, I don't understand - you agree that it's possible that the registration of weapons may (hell, IS, IMO) be the precursor to taking said weapons away from law-abiding citizens, but then basically say 'So what? It should be done anyway, it should be tougher to get ammo to be used in the gun - to the point where the gun is useless unless it's registered... And how you get around buddies sharing ammo is a mystery to me. Again, the only way I can reconcile "This is exactly what I'm most against" with the above is if you believe that the government can, and should be trusted implicitly never to abuse it's control of it's citizen's property or rights.
Personally, I simply don't trust our politicians. "He who seeks power is the one least worthy of wielding it" - and our government is by definition filled to a man with those that seek power.